Talk:World War II/Archive Combatants 2

Canada

Certainly Canada did more than the Republic of China in World War 2. Canada was apart of the forces since D-Day, China only came on after Pearl Harbor. Anyone agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyllholio (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

China was involved in a war with Japan since the mid-1930s. So no, I can't agree that they only came on after Pearl Harbour. - Eron ^Talk 01:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada took over about two thirds of the atlantic convoys midway through the war, so they helped to stop the atlantic U-boats. Without there help the Germans might of won the battle of the atlantic, starving britian of food, munitions, equipment etc. Without American support (i.e. food, munitions) Britian would of been vunverable to invasion. Without Britian there would be no stepping stone, and if the americans did invade german occupied europe then they would have to travel thousands of miles (like in the pacific), rendering their forces not as effective. I could go on forever about the consequences etc but canada did play a major part in the war.

We have been though this over and over. Get used to the fact. Canada did not play a major part in the war. If it had remained neutral, there would have been little difference. Wallie 22:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Eron. China not only lost 11 milllions civilians in the war but was, with USA, the major opponent of Japan, and, as soon as 1937, not 1941............ The Nationalist forces won many important battles against the showa army such as those fought at Changsha battle of Changsha. Canadian soldiers fought bravely but the two coutries can not absolutely be compared. --Flying tiger 04:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy is obviously trying to be funny, because I don't think anyone's that ignorant. BlueShirts 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you think was trying to be funny BlueShirts? Are you saying that China was not a major adversary of Japan during WW2? MarkThomas 14:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

you'd be surprised, Blueshirts. there are PLENTY of ignorant people out in the world Parsecboy 13:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Canada definately deserves more credit then what is being given...

While Canada was not as significant as China, such issues will keep coming up. The distinction between "major" and "minor" can appear arbitrary and is galling to some people. I thought it was better when we simply listed the combatants as "Allies" and "Axis powers", with links to the relevant articles. Grant65 | Talk 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to make the point that we are NOT talking about before World War 2, we are talking about World War 2 itself (hence the title World War 2). I also did not realize Wikipedia was a place where people make fun of other people. Ah yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyllholio (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear from your original comment what dates you are talking about. You wrote "Canada was apart of the forces since D-Day, China only came on after Pearl Harbor." D-Day was in 1944; Pearl Harbour in 1941.

The commonly accepted dates for WW II are 1939-1945, this being the period during which it was truly a global conflict. However, related conflicts on a smaller scale occurred both before and after this period. By the time the war 'officially' began in September 1939, the Second Sino-Japanese War had been underway for over two years. (Canada actually entered the war on September 10, 1939.) It is simply not correct to state that China did not begin fighting WW II until after Pearl Harbour. China did not declare war on Japan until that time, but that was a political decision; the facts on the ground were that China had been fighting a Japanese invasion since July 1937.

It's not polite to call any editor ignorant, and that shouldn't have happened. That said, if you want to propose a significant change to an article, you need to have your facts straight. - Eron ^Talk 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

hi everyone I found a un cyberschool website, this might help

This whole argument is pointless and ignorant. Canada DID have a major part in World War II, and so did China. They are both major and significant. The war may have not turned out the same if either of the countries didn't participate. China was a major opponent against Japan, along with the USA, and Canada was a major player when it came to liberating Europe (Most notable the liberation of the Netherlands) from the Axis forces. They both deserve recognition as major players. Lose of life doesn't decide if a country was a major player in a war. The Netherlands lost tons of civilian lives, but they're not considered a major player. And calling anyone ignorant is childish and unnecessary. Try being more civilized next time.

There are similar arguments in the Discussion of World War I. Canada in the leaders list and Why is it so important for Americans to place USA on the "leaders" list?. Plasma Twa 2 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason Americans want to place the USA on the WWI "leaders list" is the same reason Canadians keep trying to put Canada on the WWII "Major Allies list". Parsecboy 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland

22% of all Polish people died in the war. Poland gave so much and faught well so much in the resitance groops. It is a great nation and alied power to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Claire Semiwoky 2 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

But in the overall allied effort Polish contribution amounted to several percent at best, while the majority of the work was done by Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom and China (in that order)... With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What about India...? How did China help, other than in Asia? It was also pretty much knocked out of the war too. India actively helped resist the Japanese, and also the German and Italians. About Poland, many of the 22% were Jewish and died in the Holocaust. I do not believe it acted as a "great nation". Otherwise it would have resisted the Holocaust. Quite the opposite was the case. Wallie 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? Poland, UK, France were THE original allies. Poland's contributions to the war effort (on both fronts I might add) were second only to Great Britain amongst European allied nations. Poland's resistance (the AK) was the biggest resistantce movement in WWII with over 300,000 members. The Poles were the ones who broke the Enigma code, the No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron achieved the most kills of any Allied air squadron, and the Polish First Army was part of the 1st Belorussian Front that took Berlin. More people died in Poland (as a percentage of total population) than in any other country during World War II. I personally am offended by the suggestion that Poland was of minor importance. Revisionism has no place on Wikipedia or in history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Katarzyna (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Likewise, nationalism has no place in Wikipedia either. You exaggerate the achievements of the 303rd (only the most kills of Allied fighter squadrons in the Battle of Britain, not the entire war), and the Brits broke Enigma as well, Poland just did it first. As for it being one of the 3 original Allies, the two later ones essentially won the war- the USSR and USA. What exactly did the Polish resistance achieve that helped to win the war? About as much as the French resistance...not much. Look at it this way. Without Poland, could the Allies have won WWII? Unquestionably yes. Therefore, it's not a major ally. Parsecboy 16:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think my comments were a little misinterpreted. I didn't mean that Poland was a major power, or even that the war wouldn't have been won without them. All I was saying was that their contributions in WWII should not be overlooked (or minimized to being 'insignificant' as some on here have claimed). Anyway the point is moot now, since the combatants section now has links to allies and axis (which i think is better and resolves much of the arguments). Katarzyna 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Idiot- Im polish. We did nothing. We faught off tanks with our pretty brown horses, and then staged guerilla warfare in our own capital. We couldn't free ourselves. FRANCE freed their capital, but we couldn't. We did jack. Good job being ignoran and stupid though. Great, actually. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mad33tcompynrd (talk • contribs) 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That has to be the dumbest thing I've read yet. Your post is just a mess. Calling other people names while your post is just repulsive. We couldn't free ourselves cause we fought on our own in our capital mostly. France had the Brits and Yanks fighting along side them so they had more manpower. That's how France was freed. We did jack? I beg to differ. Poland resisted the Germans the whole war. We fought too. We might've not had the manpower like the other nations did but we still fought. We didn't sit on our asses for a year like the French and English did. Declaring war and doing nothing is "jack" and not fighting and resisting. I believe you're the one being rather stupid. Read up on your history a bit. ZuljinRaynor

China?

Does china really belong in the infobox? Much of the chinese involvement was due to the pre-existing conflict with Japan in the second sino-japanese war. I apologize if this issue has already been discussed, but perhaps a straw poll is in order. I would suggest limiting the major powers to three on each side (US, UK, USSR; Germany, Italy, Japan). --NEMT 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been, and it appears I was mocked and my request to have it changed was denied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dyllholio (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

i agree with you on this issue, they werent as much part of World War 2 as they were their war with Japan, which as stated before was going on before the War started, so one could make the arguement that Japan was fighting two seperate wars, while china was simply repeling an invasion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.45.130.162 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You simply stick with the words. The WWII is called so because it is a combination of two wars : one in Asia and one in Europe. The war became "world war" when Germany invaded Poland because it was already going in Asia. The "second sino-japanese war" is a just a way to call a conflict that began in 1937 but after 1941, the invasion of China was still part of WWII in the same way as the invasion of France, Philippines or Russia. It was NOT an isolated conflict and all the actions of the Japan army in Pacific were taken according to the events that were going in the many battles of China. As such, China is a major actor in WWII... Flying tiger 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

China wasn't a minor ally. More than 1.5 million Japanese troops were deployed in the China , more than anywhere else in the entire pacific theater. China got a permanent seat on the UN security council. From the WW2 casualties article China suffered 24% of all allied military deaths, second only to the USSR. The war against japan wasn't solely restricted to china itself as china also conducted joint operations with the Americans and the British in inodchina, with some troops reaching as far as India. BlueShirts 19:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please remember the following opinion survey is not a poll. We need consensus to be reached, and not just a list of votes. --Borgarde 08:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact there is an ongoing debate on my page with people for and against the position of China as a major ally, I propose a poll about it. Was China a major ally ?

I argue YES because, 1) according to Abe and Yamada, China had to fight against 65 of the 70 divisions of the shôwa army, in consequence almost 50% of the shôwa forces 2) The nationalists won many important battles suc as battle of Taierzhuang and battle of Changsha; 3) The fact Japan was never able to conquer China change the course of the Pacific war and prevented an adequate occupation of Solomon islands, Philppines and New Guinea and the invasion of Australia; 4) China lost 11 millions civilians and many more soldiers than other coutries such as Australia and India 5) China is a continent in itself not a "single theater". --Flying tiger 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I can't believe we are even discussing this. World War II casualties is a grim indication of China's significance. Population 1939 = 517,568,000, Military deaths = 3,000,000 (24% of the Allied total), Civilian deaths = 7,000,000 (22% of the Allied total), Total deaths = 10,000,000 Grant | Talk 15:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Just because a country lost a large number of soldiers and civilians doesn't mean their contributions to the OVERALL WAR EFFORT were correspondingly large. China was only fighting in one theatre, and only in their area of operations, not the entire Pacific theatre. The reason Japan never invaded Australia is because the US and Australian Navies defeated them at Coral Sea, and at Guadalcanal. Japan NEVER had a chance to win the Pacific war after it attacked the US, it just didn't have the industrial capacity. The argument that China's tying down 65 Japanese divisions caused Japan to lose the war is patently false. The problem with the argument that it prevented adequate defence of these islands is that the islands in question, with the exception of the Philipines, are tiny. There's no way to fit more than a division or two, which is what they were garrisoned with incidentally. You can't stick 150,000 troops on an island only a few square miles large. The reason those island bases fell was because the US had overwhelming air and sea dominance, caused by the lack of industrial power of Japan. Despite the "important" victories you list, the Japanese still controlled a large portion of China when Japan surrendered, and had the US not entered the war, they might still be there. I don't see how a country that had such a small contribution to the war can be listed among the UK, USSR, and US. Parsecboy 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said "China caused Japan to lose the war" or that the U.S. wasnt't the most significant ally in the Pacific. The argument is about China being a major ally. Yes, they were only fighting only fighting in one theatre...against half of the Japanese army! It's also not true to say that most Japanese-occupied Pacific Islands were crammed full of garrison troops -- the Allies made unopposed landings at several places in the Pacific and they would also have been useful in the Philippines, Burma, Borneo or New Guinea, where fighting raged until the end of the war.Grant | Talk 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

When japan went to war with The USA they knew of America's overwhelming industrial might. Yamamato, the head of the navy knew of this, and siad that if japan could not defeat america in the first 6 months, then it would most doubtly lose the war.

Yes. I don' see why a country that has the highest casualties and inflicted the highest Japanese casualties in the asian war shouldn't count as a major ally. If signifance as said above is factored in, then how come Italy counts as a "major" axis power when its army practically did nothing and changed sides in 1943? BlueShirts 20:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Da. Just because a country lost a large number of soldiers and civilians doesn't mean their contributions to the OVERALL WAR EFFORT were correspondingly large. USSR was only fighting in one theatre, and only in their area of operations, not the entire European theatre. The reason Germany never invaded America is because the RAF defeated them in the Battle of Britain. Germany NEVER had a chance to win the European theatre after it declared war on the US, it just didn't have the industrial capacity. The argument that USSR's tying down 4 million Germans caused Germany to lose the war is patently false. The problem with the argument that it prevented adequate reinforcement of northern France is that France, with the exception of Vichy France, was full of partisan activity which tied up German troops in the region. There's no way to assign more than a division or four to defend the coast, which is what they were garrisoned with incidentally. You can't stick 40,000 troops on a coastline a few hundred miles long and expect them to defend it. The reason Germany lost Normandy was because the US had overwhelming air and sea dominance, caused by the lack of naval and air power of Germany. Despite the "important" victories you list, the Germans already controlled a large portion of USSR when America was attacked, and had the US not entered the war, they might still be there. I don't see how a country that had such a small contribution to the war can be listed among China, UK, and US. -- 我♥中國 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon now, Miborovsky, you can't honestly compare China and USSR. To answer Blueshirts, Italy isn't really a major Axis power, but if we list 3 Allies and 3 Axis, Italy is probably the 3rd most important Axis member. I appreciate your rewording of my argument, Miborovsky, quite cunning, I must say. the USSR destroyed the German army, and conquered half of Germany, almost entirely on its own. China NEVER DROVE OUT THE JAPANESE. That in and of itself is reason enough to not count China as a major ally. All of your "arguments" are laughable, so I won't discuss them. The most important point here is that China only fought in one campaign, and didn't even emerge victorious from it. Parsecboy 00:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

C'mon now, Parsecboy, you can't honestly compare Germany and China. I appreciate your evasion of my argument, Parsecboy, quite cunning, I must say. the USSR destroyed the German army, and conquered half of Germany, almost entirely on its own. Germany NEVER DROVE OUT THE BRITISH. That in and of itself is reason enough to not count Germany as a major axis. All of my arguments are flawless, so I understand why you won't discuss them. The most important point here is that Germany only fought in 1 theatre, and didn't even emerge victorious it. -- 我♥中國 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're simply being ludicrous. I didn't comment on your illogical comparisons of the Atlantic Wall and tiny Pacific islands because it's laughable to compare several hundred miles of coastline to a square mile or two. Comparing Germany to China is comparing apples to oranges. All you do is throw red herrings around like "Germany never drove out the British". Wwell, they lost the war. China was a "victor", even if they weren't victorious in their own campaign. I don't understand the comment about the USSR, perhaps you shouldn't just copy-paste what I say and switch a few words. I understand that you're a hyper-nationalist, but try to look objectively at the issue.Parsecboy 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're still evading my arguments. And adding personal attacks, to boot. Explain to me how the USSR is a major Allied power when they fought a defensive war, and how Germany was a major Axis power when they failed to achieve victory against a single major Allied power. -- 我♥中國 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Where was there a personal attack? If you're going to make such assertions, I'd like them to be at least true. I didn't answer your "arguments" because you yourself know they're ridiculous. But to humor you, Germany is a major Axis power because it was the cause of the war in Europe. As for their not being victorious over the Allies is blatantly simple: not everyone can win a war. Someone has to lose. The USSR is a major Allied power because (now pay attention this time, because I've been saying this repeatedly, and you haven't listened before) they drove out the invading Germans, and were the primary reason Germany lost the war. China was not. End of story. Parsecboy 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am afraid I can't quite see it as such a minor theatre of war. I can't quite believe that the Japanese only occupied ever so small an area of China, I must assume that the Japanese forces were really quite tied down with the parts of China they did occupy. Actual losses don't really come into it. The number of Japanese forces who had to be diverted from the theatre of war in the Pacific must have been quite considerable, surely? It must have played on the minds of the Japanese Supreme Commanders that they didn't have the numbers of forces available in the Pacific after all? Dieter Simon 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I fail to see how failure to drive out the Japanese is reason to exclude. If that were the case, only the victors would be significant enough to be entered into the infobox. Wars are not evaluated solely on the battles that were fought. And why limit to three on either side? --Jiang 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No. China's involvement stemmed from previous military engagements, and had little effect on the axis powers at large, additionally, China's actions were almost exclusively limited to fighting an already ongoing conflict with Japan. Proportional and raw loss of civilian and military life should not be a factor in considering who is a major ally and who is not. The main contribution of the Chinese war effort in historic context is prompting the US oil and metal sanctions, which led to the Japanese declaration of war - not any post 1939 military action against Japanese forces. Additionally, not including RoC in the infobox does not imply RoC was not a "major allied power," please note the "and others" underneath the US, UK and USSR. As an encyclopedia, the intention of visitors seeking knowledge should be taken into account - were they here to read about Chinese involvement they would likely (and be better served to) go to the page on the Second Sino Japanese War instead. --NEMT 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Proportional and raw loss of civilian and military life should not be a factor in considering who is a major ally and who is not." Why not? Note that casualties among Chinese civilians were horrendous and yet the proportion of casualties in the Chinese military was slightly higher. That and the number of Japanese troops in China doesn't suggest that the Chinese Army was content to sit back and let the US Navy do the job for it. Far from it. Grant | Talk 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Because war has very little to do with how many people die - or have you not checked the casualty figures and the outcome on the very infobox this discussion invovled? Additionally, Second Sino-Japanese War. --NEMT 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here. Personnel numbers and casualties are very good indicators of the depth of involvement. Not the only indicators, but very good ones. The illusion that wars can be won by planes, ships and tanks, without foot soldiers, has been shattered over and over again.Grant | Talk 14:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No. China's over-all war involvement was minimal to only between Japan. They never were involved at a world-wide scale. If we include China, we must also include Australia and India. Australia and India both had a larger war effort than China. Casulaties does not mean they were major. --Borgarde 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we remove Italy from major axis by the same token. 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Italy and Italian occupied territories were major battlegrounds in the war and involved all major allied powers, in addition to Italian campaigns in British Somaliland, Greece and the eastern front. Regardless of the tactical effects, the involvement is of a different nature than China's - in addition to Italy's declaration of war on the allies (I am unaware of China declaring war on Italy or Germany - correct me if I'm wrong).--NEMT 10:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

China declared war on the rest of the axis on dec. 9, 1941. BlueShirts 10:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Casulaties does not mean they were major" Why not? I am Australian with a long-standing interest in WW2 and I can't agree that the Australian contribution was on the scale of China (except perhaps in proportional terms). The same goes for India, Canada, Poland and France. Grant | Talk 09:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another thing to think about, in regards to the casualty numbers sustained by China: China has the largest population in the entire world, so casualties that would've crushed the military-industrial complexes of smaller countries were somewhat easily shrugged off. I don't know population numbers for the late '30s and '40s, but China currently has somewhere around 1.3 billion people, and it didn't shoot up overnight. My point is, you have to put into context the numbers you're throwing around. Sure, China sustained the second most casualties, but compared to USSR, which suffered the most, and had a population a fraction the size of China's, it's proportionally small. Parsecboy 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No Opinion. It seems obvious to me that arguments over who were "major" and "minor" contributors to the Alliance will be interminable, as well as being somewhat revolting in the sense that we are arguing over how many millions of casualties is a "major" amount. By many reasonable metrics, the contribution of, for example, the UK and US was quite minor compared to that China and especially the Soviet Union. Ditch all the POV references to individual nations from the infobox and just include links to the relevent pages- e.g. Allies and Axis. Badgerpatrol 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree and have said as much before. But in the context of the present debate, if we have "major allies", I think China should be included. Grant | Talk 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I find the whole debate distasteful, unecessary, and ridiculous. But if the petty squabble over who goes in and who comes out of the infobox continues, my position can be taken as "China in". If people feel there's an absolute necessity to keep it down to three only, remove the UK. Badgerpatrol 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Yes. When the British and the American forces were getting their assess kicked by the imperial Japanese Army during the begining of the WWII Pacific theater (losing the Phillipines, Malaya, Singapore, Burma in a rapid pace), the Chinese army won the battle of Changsha for the third time against the Japapnese. At that time, according an editorial of The Times London: “Since 7 December, the only decisive victory of the Allies is the Chinese Army victory at Changsha… ” , and London Daily Telegraph also commented: “As dark clouds looms over the Far East, we can only see the sun shining bright over the sky of Changsha…" So I think the only Allie Allie army that is winning battles against the Axis in 1941 should be considered a major player.DCTT 06:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Many aspects of this discussion seem circular and fruitless, the issue at hand as it related to wikipedia is not if China was a "major allied power," but rather if China should be included in the infobox specifically, and not just implied as part of the "and others" line. Should the Republic of China be included in this articles infobox?
No. as per reasons stated in discussion above. --NEMT 10:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You voted once already, that rings any bell? If it's a major power then it should belong in the infobox, why make such as fastidious distinction? Where's the rule that says there should be a limitation to three? WWI article has five for allies and four for central powers. What's your point? BlueShirts 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a different question, please reread: "Should the Republic of China be included in this articles infobox?" vs. "Was China a major ally?" The infobox already lists "others" as major allies, so whether or not China was a major ally has little bearing on its inclusion with the US, UK and USSR in the infobox. China's involvement in WW2 was based on action in a single, defensive theater, against a single major axis power, stemming from a preexisting conflict; and as such, China does not belong listed with the US, UK and USSR. Additionally, this isn't a "vote," it's a discussion to establish consensus. --NEMT 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If this be the case, provide a criteria for all the countries involved. What is necessary for inclusion? If we can't provide this, the discussion will be endless.--Jiang 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

that's a good idea. how about for starters, "active participation in more than one area of operations", "major contribution to the overall war effort, i.e., inflicting major defeats on an opponent". i would think both of those guidelines would be acceptable, if perhaps a little subjective, in the case of the second one. when I say major defeats, I mean things like the Coral Sea or El Alamein that had a sizeable impact on the course of the war. Parsecboy 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How about some of these: Involvement in domestic and foreign (defensive and offensive) combat, involvement in multiple campaigns starting after 1939, unified declarations of war against enemy powers and/or formal union with allies, any of these sound good? --NEMT 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This would include Canada, Australia, etc. and significantly expand the list.--Jiang 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your last question and comment does not bring anything new. We did not vote "just for fun". In the question of China as a "major ally", the implicit question was evidently : "should China be kept in the infobox ?" as the debate started about this controversy...The score is still 6 to 3 in favor of China in the infobox. --Flying tiger 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you've found a very strange way to word and execute it. Removing RoC from the infobox does not imply RoC was not a major allied power - what part of "and others" is confounding you folks? The nature of China's involvement does not warrant inclusion, period. --NEMT 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill at the Cairo Conference November 25, 1943

NEMT, China joined the United Nations (Allies) in 1942. that Chiang could have a summit with FDR and Winnie (see pic) in 1943 says that he was a major player.

Parsecboy:

• "active participation in more than one area of operations": Meaningless, considering the depth of China's involvement. If it wasn't for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria you could say the same thing about the USSR. I wouldn't, but you could.
• "major contribution to the overall war effort, i.e., inflicting major defeats on an opponent" Have you read Second Sino-Japanese War? "The Kuomintang fought in 22 major engagements, most of which involved more than 100,000 troops on both sides, 1,171 minor engagements most of which involved more than 50,000 troops on both sides..." As for inflicting major defeats, try Third Battle of Changsha, Battle of West Hubei, Battle of Changde, and Battle of West Hunan. Then there are all the Japanese victories in 1944-45, which show how seriously they took the Chinese theatre.

Grant | Talk 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could point out the 1938 and 1939 border conflicts between the USSR and Japan. And I meant area of operations in the sense of a locality, i.e., USSR's Northern War against Finland was a different AO than the Eastern Front with Germany.

And when I said "major contribution to the war effort" I meant fighting battles that actually affected the outcome of the war. I'm not trying to denigrate the Chinese Army, but they never had much effect on the rest of the war as a whole. Sure, they fought large scale battles, but what did they result in? More deadlock in China. That's it. I don't see how that's a major contribution. How seriously the Japanese took China is irrelevant. They just wanted to conquer it and turn it into a puppet state. Parsecboy 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the second sino-japanese war. Why are so many people having trouble grasping this? The second sino-japanese war was a pre-extant conflict. Is Ethiopia a major allied power because they fought a costly war with pre-1939 Italy? Would they be if that war had continued into WW2? --NEMT 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, why do you have trouble grasping that the Second Sino-Japanese War merged into the World War in 1941? The China theatre is part of the standard definition of WW2. The battles named above occurred after China (and the USA) joined the Allies. Grant | Talk 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have contradicted none of that, you have still failed to demonstrate why China should be included with the other three major allies, though. While the Chinese theater was part of the global war, Chinese involvement in WW2 was merely a rebranding of a two state conflict. You'd have an arguably better case for the Free French or the Polish. --NEMT 06:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

engaging more than half of the japanese army? BlueShirts 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

hi every one I found an un cyberschool website for you guys [[1]] un cyberschoolbus intro to un ww2 related. January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.126.130 (talk • contribs)

Good link, 58.168; on that page the U.N. says of its own foundation: "Even as the Second World War raged, the leaders of Britain, China, the US and the USSR, under intense pressure from the press and public, discussed the details of a post-war organization. In 1944 representatives of China, the UK, the US and the USSR meeting at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC, prepared a blueprint for an international organization." And they were the only ones there. No Free France, no Poland, no Canada, and no Australia, all of which contributed greatly but were second-tier Allies in WW2.Grant | Talk 09:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

yes exactly, and it said that the UNSc consists of five victors of the war, btw NEMT, the difference between ROC and Ethiopia is that after WW2 ROC became one of the Big Five and Ethiopia did not.

Good find. Now we can turn to WP:V and insist that if someone wants to remove China from the list of major allies (or insert Ethiopia, Poland, Canada or such), they need to provide a reliable source that excludes China (or includes their favorite country). Since this is an encyclopedia, we need to rely on published sources, not impassioned arguments. China was, in fact, a major ally and no serious historian would leave them of that short list. --Habap 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only read the first page, so can someone point out for brevity where that doc states that China was a "major" member of the Allies? Badgerpatrol 13:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NO. I consider the role that China played in the formation of the UN to be totally spurious to its status as an Ally in World War II. Presence or non-presence of countries like China or Canada at Dunbarton is a bad argument, since nations like Canada were represented by the United Kingdom in such activities as a norm. However years before Dunbarton there was the declartion of St. James Palace by the following nations: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa and of the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia and of General de Gaulle of France. (See http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/history/) Note that CHINA is NOT one of them. Furthermore the Atlantic Charter (the precursor to the United Nations declartion) consisted of two nations only, one of them NOT EVEN AT WAR AT THE TIME (the UK and the USA). So the presence of China in the "big four" of the UN declartion can hardly be an argument as to their status. Of the original 26 signatories to the charter, 22 signed the next day, and they also included Canada. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/history/declaration.shtml Why am I harping on about Canada? Because its the perfect contrast class. A major contributor to the European War Effort, a founding member of the League of Nations and the United Nations, and one of the original declarants on the Allied side. If you dont consider Canada to be a "major ally" then IMO that outright precludes China.

I think the solution to this question is what would the generals at the time have consider to be their allies. I think a contemporary person of the time would not have counted China. It had no troops serving under Allied Supreme Command, it had no military presence outside its own borders, it was not contributing troops or weapons to fight outside its borders etc. Simply because China and the Allies had a common enemy in Japan does not mean that they were Allies in the formal sense of the word. Calling them a "major ally" is a real stretch. I think it is quite clear that no contemporary person on the Allied side would have ever enumerated China amongst them. Certainly I have never seen a history book that does do so. Even when one looks at the material contributions of the United States under the lend-lease program, China received in support less material than Canada alone donated to the UK (1.9 billion to 4.9 billion), if China was such a major ally then surely the US would have contributed more to it? Until somebody can find a signfigant reference of the "allies" including the Chinese at the time then I think this matter should be brought to a close. Demerphq 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nations like Canada were represented by the United Kingdom in such activities as a norm". Incorrect: Canada had an independent foreign policy by 1939, see Statute of Westminster. Its contribution, while significant was no more so than that of Polish or Australian forces. The Lend Lease point is ephemeral as such programs reflected political ties and strategic imperatives, rather than who was doing what. The U.S. had a lot of disagreements with Chiang, even though Stilwell was officially his chief of staff for a time.

China's role was not glamourous and full of "D-Days" but it continually engaged more than 10 Japanese field armies at a time. When and for how long did Canada engage that many enemy forces? Grant | Talk 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt, we consult our good friend Britannica: "In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China." (entry on Allied Powers). --Jiang 15:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant65, by your logic France should be included on the list, because it got a permanent seat on the UNSC too. As for proof that China was not a major power, that's impossible. You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who insist China was a major power during the war. I've been saying this repeatedly, and no one has yet to seriously address it: did China participate in any campaigns that led to the eventual defeat of an Axis country? The only possible answer is "No". China may have made contributions to the war effort, made heroic sacrifices, and won some large battles, but overall, they weren't that effective, especially considering the fact that population-wise, China dwarfed Japan. If someone from the "Yes" camp would sufficiently discuss this issue without resorting to "read about the Battle of Chengde" (my point being, minor powers can win battles too; a victory does not automatically merit major status), I'd be appreciative. Parsecboy 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it that we're ignoring our own Allies of World War II article? It starts with China. --Habap 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You're ignoring my arguments. And since when is it fine to use other wikipedia articles as sources? Parsecboy 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

France, while it was a major pre-war and post-war power, did not play enough of a role between mid-1940 and mid-1944 to justify the title of major WW2 ally. That's why it wasn't at Dunbarton Oaks.

As I said above, China's role was not glamourous and full of D-Days but it continually engaged more than 10 Japanese field armies at a time. When and for how long did France engage that many German forces? Grant | Talk 16:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic about including France based solely on it's permanent membership in the UNSC. So the Chinese fought 10 Japanese field armies. Did they ultimately defeat them and drive them out of China? No. I never said anything about fighting a "glamourous" war (is war EVER glamourous?). But to merit inclusion into the "Major Allies list", the countries in question should significantly contribute to the Allied victory. How is that so hard to understand or accept? Parsecboy 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing we would be wise to ask ourselves is how the outcome of the global war could have been affected had China not been involved. As China was fighting a defensive war, this question becomes more dynamic and involves two possible scenarios, primarily, "What if China had capitulated or lost to Japan before WW2?" or "What if Japan had not engaged China before or during WW2?" The most significant contribution comes not from Chinese military action against the Japanese specifically, but rather the diplomatic effect the Second Sino-Japanese War had on the US, and the US involvement in the Pacific and European theaters. Without the US, UK or USSR individually it is not difficult to imagine an Axis victory, or at least a much less decisive Axis defeat. Without Chinese military involvement, however, barring a scenario where the US remains neutral because of it, casting the outcome of WW2 as radically different becomes much more difficult. It is because of this the Republic of China should not be included.

One more note, perhaps the infobox should be changed from "Major X Powers" to "X Powers," to avoid some of the duplicity this discussion has exposed. --153.104.64.131 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been exactly my point during the whole discussion, and not a single person from the "Yes" camp has addressed it, save Miborovsky copy-pasting what I said, and changing China and Japan to Germany and Great Britain, which I notice he/she has apparently tired of. I'm asking those who believe China belongs on the list to humor me and discuss this question. Parsecboy 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, Parsecboy. I think much of the "Yes" side seems motivated by Chinese pride or nationalism, rather than actual facts surrounding Chinese involvement in WW2. No one is denying the Chinese war effort and its key victories, however, their scope comes nowhere close to the other three mentioned in the infobox, nor does it comes close to the impact of the three listed Axis powers. Additionally, one would be hard pressed to find many outside of China or Japan who would list "China" as a "major allied power" when asked to just name a few. --153.104.64.131 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

153.104.64.131, I do not think this remark about "nationalism" is justified. I am not chinese, neither many users who voted for China to be kept in the infobox. I would add, that as Grant65 wrote earlier, the fact that this controversy arose is simply mostly surprising. Is it because the China front is neglected and mostly unknown by some ? To add to your "What if" commentary, the WWII simply would not exist without the war in China as the Pearl Harbor attack was the consequence of the embargo and the ultimatum of july 1941 linked to the withdrawal of Japan from China. Without Chinese military involvement, Japan would have conquered China well before 1941 and as in the case of Manchukuo, would have imposed a foreign government with only formal recriminations of USA. Despite massive military involvement of 65 of its divisions, the internal war between the nationalists and communists, Japan was never able to conquer China and this had a big impact on the Pacific war, on political and military aspects. Hirohito knew from the beginning his empire could not win a war against USA. He just gambled to secure his position in China, find natural ressouces in east asia and eventually, negociate an armistice with USA, once the occupation would be completed. However, because of chinese resistance, this never happened and the war lasted until 1945. --Flying tiger 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the Chinese front is largely unknown and ignored, but that fact alone doesn't merit inclusion in the list. Your "Without Chinese military involvement, Japan would have conquered..." comment doesn't make sense. Do you mean "If the Chinese Army laid down and surrendered after the Japanese surrender"? As for the internal war between the communists and nationalists, I don't agree. Read New Fourth Army or Eigth Route Army, they put aside their differences to fight the common enemy. I'm not so sure Hirohito knew Japan couldn't defeat America, but Yamamoto surely did. I disagree that the inability of Japan to conquer China had great effects on the war overall. The reason the war lasted until 1945 had nothing to do with China, it had everything to do with America not accepting an armistice. If America had decided to give up after the initial string of defeats, China wouldn't have had a chance, as Japan had at that point secured the necessary resources to defeat China. Parsecboy 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if China had been defeated , between 1937 and 1941, or in 3 months (!!) as predicted by Sugiyama, there would have been no invasion of Indochina, no Pearl Harbor and probably no USA in WWII.

I know the relations between Chiang and Mao. Even if Chiang was kidnapped by his officers and forced to make peace with Mao. They simply tolerated each others and never really cooperated as a united force. When Okamura launched the sanko sakusen in 1942, Chiang made no move to help the communists.

Hirohito knew everything in detail about the war against USA. On september 5th 1941, he had a meeting with Konoe, Nagano and Sugiyama and on the 6th, in imperial conference, a policy was presented which explained that USA could not be defeated and that the end of a war against Occident could not be predicted. The war was launched to capture natural ressources and give time for the showa forces to complete the occupation of China. However, the occupation of China could never be completed. Was it because of the actions of USA in Pacific ? Was it because of the actions of the chinese forces ? It was a combination of the two factors. The point is not : China fought alone. It is China had a big impact on the war against Japan and was as such a major ally.

--Flying tiger 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The high point of KMT-CCP cooperation (along with political liberalization) was in Wuhan 1938. After that, the united front was pretty much in name only and the New Fourth Army Incident destroyed whatever cooperation they had. BlueShirts 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the USA would've eventually been pulled into WWII even if there were no Pacific theatre, but this is not the place for that discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially your main argument for including China on the list is that they were the reason for the whole pacific war, and that they tied down the bulk of the Japanese Army for the duration of the war. The first argument is discounted by Poland's status as a minor Ally, as it was the casus belli for the European war. I've already made arguments that China's tying down of Japanese Army troops wasn't that significant in the overall course of the war. I'm not saying China had no impact on World War II, it was the core issue for the entire Pacific theatre starting, but much the same as Poland, that doesn't mean it's a major allied power. Parsecboy 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Poland is different from China and China was more than a casus belli. Poland's army waslargely destroyed and was not part of any big engagements fighting the enemy or even "tying" them down. The operations by the home army had neglible value, much like most underground resistance movements. China on the other hand had a standing army actively engaging the enemy. The polish government had fled to England while another was propped up by the Soviets. China should have lost but continued fighting in the war, and that's why it got a permanent seat in the UN security council with the most of unequal treaties (sans Hong Kong) abrogated. If China gave up and surrendered and wasn't a major power then the western powers most likely would have just returned to their spheres of influence in China, much like they did in Indochina. BlueShirts 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Parsecboy, I agree with BlueShirts, I simply do not understand your link between Poland and China. Apart from the fact that the two countries were invaded and that these are considered the beginning of the europeans and asian wars. We could discuss for days, but the main problem is you do not recognize the impact of the chineses troops and how much they paralysed half of Japan's forces, between 1937 and 1945.

Considering the fact that USA could have fought in Europe without fighting on the pacific front if China had been defeated before 1941, can you imagine how much faster Germany would have been crushed ? --Flying tiger 22:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

let's just stick to the official sources such as the one I have given and stop given passionate speeches shall we? this debate is going no where . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.126.130 (talk • contribs)

The respective numbers and conditions in China and Burma meant the war was unlikely to be won by either side on those fronts, at least until the Soviet intercession. The same could be said of the Italian campaign until D-day. War is not just about brilliant masterplans and stunning breakthroughs, it is about creating time and space in which a country and its allies can plan and execute counterattacks. That is also the role that Britain played from mid-1940 until mid-1941. It may not have succumbed to a planned German invasion, but it could not have defeated Germany on its own.

The fact that the Japanese were able to successfully counterattack in China in 1944-45 meant that they had — for example — far fewer troops available in the Philippines. It is not possible to imagine an invasion of the Japanese home islands by the western Allies in 1945-46 without (among other things) a successful Philippines campaign (1944-45). Grant | Talk 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're both still avoiding my arguments, and only discussing red herrings like "China was more important than Poland". Both of you weren't listening to what I was saying. Flying Tiger argued that since without China's continued involvement in the sino-japanese war, there would have been no Pacific Theatre in World War II. I stated that being the casus belli (and just pointed out the fact that Poland, the casus belli for the European theatre wasn't a major power; I never said China's contributions were the same as those of Poland's) isn't by definition justification of being included as a major ally. As a side note, I would imagine members of the Polish II Corps, which led the break through in Italy at Monte Casino would appreciate you calling their accomplishments "negligible". Regardless, Poland isn't the issue here. Flying Tiger, you say that you don't "understand [my] link between Poland and China...beginning of the europeans and asian wars". What more is there to get? That was my whole point. I doubt that not fighting in the Pacific would've had a drastic effect on Germany's eventual defeat, timeline-wise. The Americans would have still had to build up a woefully underfunded and ill-equiped military, and like I've said earlier, the Pacific War was mostly naval fighting, whereas Europe was primarily land based combat. Moreover, it is rather likely that war between Japan and America would have occured anyways. Had Japan crushed China, it may have been apt to attack the USSR to aid Germany, which would have caused America and the UK to declare war on Japan. But this is not the place for "What if?" scenarios. Look at the facts, at what actually happened. Could the USA have defeated Japan without China? Unquestionably. Could China have defeated Japan without the US? Very unlikely. Parsecboy 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the US, UK and others have defeated Germany without the USSR? Very, very debatable indeed. Should we remove the US and UK from the majors as well then? This debate catalyses the fact that trite arguments over who did or didn't do or wouldn't have or couldn't have done what without whom are entirely misleading and inappropriate. Once again- ditch the list in the infobox completely and link to the relevent articles where the required full analysis can be given. Badgerpatrol 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Grant65, how able were the Japanese to significantly reinforce the Philipines in 1944-45? Most of their shipping was being intercepted and destroyed by Allied submarines. Regardless, the Philipines was un-retainable for the Japanese; the Americans had overwhelming sea and air dominance, and the Japanese couldn't count on the Filipinos to support them, like they could in Japanese islands. One cannot fight a defensive battle without the support of the population. Also, I think "brilliant masterplans and stunning breakthroughs" are more important than you assert. China was fighting for its very survival, and couldn't rely on a potential American victory in the Pacific. Napolean once stated that war is never won on the defensive. Parsecboy 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Parsec, I'm really not sure what your argument is. "The Pacific War was mostly naval fighting" Yes...unless you were Chinese, British, Australian, Indian, Burmese, Korean, Filipino... "Could the USA have defeated Japan without China?" Maybe....US capabilities are irrelevant in determining China's contribution, because China carried the burden of land operations in the Pacific War.

It would have been a whole different ball game for the US if it had to deal with the Japanese land, air and sea units which were in China in 1941-45. Those units could have been in southern Asia and the southern Pacific from an early stage. Allied subs would have had less of an impact, if they had to deal with Japanese aircraft and shipping freed up from the China campaign. Grant | Talk 04:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I argued that the US would have defeated Japan without China's assistance because Blueshirts and Flying Tiger keep arguing that China had a drastic impact on the rest of the Pacific Theatre. What sea units were in China? Riverine patrol craft? Do you think the Japanese armies in China would have stopped if China had succumbed? No, they would have continued on into India, so these supposed forces that would be sent to reinforce Pacific islands would have never materialised. And even if that did not happen, like I've argued before, there are only so many soldiers you can stick on a few square miles of sand in the middle of the ocean. Also, having 150,000 troops on a tiny coral atoll does you no good if they cannot be resupplied. The Pacific war wouldn't have been all that much different without China's continued resistance. The only thing that would've had a drastic effect was the air units, but those were all land based planes, they would have been no help at Midway, which was where the tide of the war turned. Even still, those units would have supported the invasion of India. The Allied subs would have had the exact same impact, because the Japanese never took effective anti-submarine tactics. Parsecboy 13:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting so much emphasis on Midway only shows that you're looking at it back to front; if it had not been for China tieing down Japanese forces, then the Pacific War would not have been mostly a naval war (from the U.S. perspective). As you allude, the US would then likely have been fighting a larger land war in India/Australia/Siberia/godknowswhere. That would have been a different story. The U.S. tipped the balance in the Pacific, as it did in Europe, while engaging in several of the largest naval battles in history. It did fight on land in the Solomon Islands, New Guinea and the Philippines, but relatively speaking it did little of the on-land fighting against Japan, because that was being done in and by China. Grant | Talk 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how looking at Midway as a turning point is back to front. The Japanese Navy didn't really recover from the losses until 1944 (in terms of carrier numbers, the quality of pilots never recovered). Japan wouldn't have invaded Australia; they were stopped at Coral Sea and Guadalcanal. Sure, they may have been able to reinforce Guadalcanal, but the US Navy's eventual dominance around the island would've made that increasingly prohibitive, and the USMC would've eventually defeated the IJA. After 1942, Japan didn't have the naval power to force a landing in Australia. I would strongly disagree that the USA merely "tipped the balance" in the Pacific; it won the war in that theatre. It was primarily the USA that destroyed Japan's merchant fleet (which destroyed Japan's ability to wage war), the USA that destroyed Japanese naval and air power. I doubt American troops would've been deployed to India in large numbers; America's primary focus was getting close enough to Japan to start bombing cities and force the end of the war. I also doubt a Japanese attack on Siberia, although it was not impossible. Sure, most of the on land fighting was done by China, but we come back yet again to my point: what did all that fighting result in? All of the battles you and others listed earlier are defensive battles. A stalemate is not the same as a victory. Parsecboy 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's back-to-front because a battle like Midway would have been relatively insignificant and may not even have occurred, had the US had to fight a land war against the bulk of the Japanese Army, which it never did. (For the same reasons that Trafalgar, significant as it was, is regarded as less significant than Waterloo.) The USA only "won the war in the Pacific" if you conceive of the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II as being somehow magically distinct from what was occurring in the rest of the world, especially China. Which it was not. By the way, all of the battles in China I referred to were Chinese victories, not "stalemates". Grant | Talk 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the battles themselves were stalemates, but the Chinese front as a whole remained a stalemate, despite Chinese defensive victories, and with that you cannot argue. I still disagree with your categorization of Midway. If anything, you're thinking about the battle not occuring if America had to fight a major land war against Japan is back to front. In the first half of 1942, there was virtually no possiblity of American troops being sent to China in large quantities, as the American army was still being stood up, and there wasn't sufficient naval power built up enough to both take the risky trip through the Indian ocean, which was still being ravaged by German commerce raiders and still engage the Japanese fleets. So if the US did not win the war in the Pacific, who did? Who forced Japan to surrender? What specifically led to the Japanese withdrawal from China? Parsecboy 01:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the Soviets launched Operation August Storm and considerably destroyed the Kwantung Army. I thought they were the ones who led to the Japanese withdrawl from China. And unless I am terribly mistaken again, I believe Hirohito worried about the Soviet declaration of war on Japan. Parsecboy, look at things from the international POV (yes that includes non-Western powers like USSR and China) instead of just from an American POV. 129.109.231.129 04:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I very well know August storm destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria, but it occurred in the last days of the war. By that time, Japan was essentially broken. The USSR only (opportunistically, I might add) hastened the inevitable collapse. I do not look at things from an American POV, and I resent your insinuation that I do. Parsecboy 13:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me further extend that denying the value of China's role in defeating the Japanese is not an American POV. You will not find a respected American historian who would agree with Parsecboy. Whatever POV he has, it's not because he's an American. --Habap 13:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Big 3" in World War II was Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. There's no Chinese leader in there.. --Borgarde 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No-one is saying that China was as "big" as the Big Three, but it was damn sight bigger than any of the other Allies. Anyway, how about the "Four Policemen", Roosevelt's phrase? [2]&[3]. The fourth "policeman" wasn't France, Canada, Australia or Poland.

Look at this another way: the USSR fought "no less than 50 and sometimes 75%" (AJP Taylor's words) of the German army, and flattened one Japanese army group in 1945. The US fought the vast bulk of the Japanese navy, 10-30% of the Japanese army and about the same proportion of the German army. The UK (being generous and includng Commonwealth forces) fought most of the German and Italian navies, most of the Italian army, no more than 10% of the German army and about the same proportion of the Japanese. China fought the vast majority of the Japanese army for eight years. I rest my case. Grant | Talk 17:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous question, if someone is itching to eliminate a country from the combatant box of Allied Powers, it should be FRANCE! After all, the French and the British lost the battle of France in what...a month and ten days! China fought the Japanese for eight years, longer than any country in the Allie Powers. Not to mention that Vichy Franch is an Axis collaborator that fought the Allies and handed the French Jews to the Nazis.DCTT 06:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"""YES""" a bit late for the poll though. Anyway, if China had been overwhelmed by Japan, japan could of had more troops and equipment, so could be a stronger force in the war against america, or could of even turned its intentions to the USSR. Japan knew that if it didn't win the war after 6 months, it would probally lose because of americas overwhelming military might. So if japan had more troops, ships and planes they could of destroyed more of the USA army and navy. Severly weakened the japanese could of won the battle of midway, so giving a platform to hawaii. From there they could get a ceasefire or invade america, most probally through canada. Going back to another idea. In 1941 Stalin oved 40 of his est divisions in the east, to the west to fight the germans at moscow. Without these troops the counter-attack at the battle of Moscow probally wouldn't of happened. The Germans would of most doubtly taken Moscow. All the power of the state would of been destroyed, and russia would of lost the war, but would still keep on fighting, mainly because it was so big it would take months to travel. Those 40 divisions were positioned to fight of a japanese invasion of russia, which never happened. If the japenese did invade then these divisions would not been able to participate in the Moscow counter-offensive, and the allies might of lost the war.

List of allies - particulary the order of

As far as I understand the alies and axis listed (big three for each) are arranged in chronological order. In my humble opinion that creates a problem with Japan - it was at war with China from 1937, potentially making it the first one on the list of axis. I propose to re-arrange those nations in the order of their input into allied (and axis) war effort. In which case the order would be: Allies:USSR, USA, UK Axis:Germany, Japan, Italy. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The second sino-japanese war is not world war 2, even if fighting there continued into it. By your logic, should Italy also be included ahead of Germany because of the second italo-abyssinian war? --NEMT 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Axis powers of World War II. Just because Japan was engaged in hostilities did not merit membership into the "Axis". That came from a formal agreement AFTER Germany and italy signed an earlier agreement (note: Italy came up with term "Axis" anyway). In my opnion, no change warranted. HJ 15:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should rate the allies and axis on their importance as opposed to the time they joined their respective alliances - utilizing similar logic to the one employed in restricting the list to important players only. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating importance is bound to cause arguments because it is entirely subjective. Basing it on date-of-entry is at least objective. As HJ notes, if we use the date-of-agreement as the basis, they would not be listed first. --Habap 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but by going by that yard stick both the USSR and the USA who joined the hostilities (on the side of the Allies) literally years after the United Kingdom, Australia, New-Zealand and Canada. Not only that but putting the USSR /first/ in the list of Allies is surely wrong since they were actually Axis treaty members until the German invasion of the USSR, fighting /against/ the allies. Demerphq 11:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Think the list is based on contribution rather than chronological order. Re: Soviets, see comment below from Parsecboy. This is pretty accurate. Wallie 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Go alphabetical. Problem solved. And the U.S. bashers will be happy. Haber 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the USSR was never an Axis member, probably more of a co-belligerent at the time, the same as Finland or Thailand during the war. Alphabetical listing or by date of involvement are both fine options, in my opinion. Parsecboy 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To Habap: You're right, it is a bad idea. To demerphq: however, 7 out of 8 Germans and their european allies killed were killed by USSR. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I support chronological order simply because all main powers didn't got involved in same time or very short timeperiod. Soviet Union joined war more than 1,5 years later then UK and USA joined war more than 2 years later then UK. Also, before Barbarossa Soviet Union was supporting war effort of Germany both militarily(invasion of poland), and economically(sending raw materials to Germany). Its really hard to achieve consensus here about that who was most importnant ally so ordering countries by that is quite problematic. And by Alphabetical order China and France(if it is included) would be first 2 allied countries. So I stronly support using chronological order in infobox.--Staberinde 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Nations (especially the US)

One thing I found interesting was the lack of discussion of the nations that declared themselves neutral at the beginng of hostilities. I think this is a serious omission, the political mood of neutrality and non-interference world wide were certainly signifigant to the history of the time. In particular the declaration of neutrality by American President Franklin Roosevelt on USA on Sept 5 1939 was of particular importance. At the very least the American Neutrality Act prohibited the sending of supplies to countries at war, which given the scale of the US economy and its relation to the British Empire would have had a signifigant impact on such things as the British and German strategic decisions. The United States neutrality in the early stages of the war also gives perspective to the importance of the commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Afrika joining the war.

Demerphq 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the English. They always say how they stood alone against the Germans. Just heard Blair say this on TV. Obviously didn't need the Commonwealth... Wallie 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Battle of Britain and all... --NEMT 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the info box in that very article, you'll see other nations, including the Commonwealth, Poland, USA, etc. that contributed forces to the Battle of Britain. Parsecboy 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm --NEMT 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

rmv major

If no one objects, I'm going to go ahead and change the infobox from "Major Axis/Allied Powers" to "Axis/Allied Powers." I think it works much better. --NEMT 01:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Go head, be bold. I think it would solve a lot of the problems in regards to the above China debate. Personally, I think it's a better idea to go with Badgerpatrol's removal of the individual countries, as I don't believe a consensus will be reached. Without doing that, every time a Polish/Canadian/Chinese/etc. nationalist comes along, they'll want to insert their country, and spark an edit war. Parsecboy 19:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it. There are a few Polish/Canadian/Chinese patriots around, aren't there. Perhaps these countries should form a club. Wallie 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes, hopefully soon we'll have China off there for good as well. --NEMT 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to remove China, I think we shouldn't list any countries at all - simply refer to the Allied and Axis articles and leave any arguments for there. As previously noted, pro-Polish, pro-Canadian and anti-Chinese editors will cause trouble in the future if we list specific countries. I think it's sad, but better to avoid arguments over a minor point when there is so much actual work to get done. --Habap 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To avoid arguments over a minor point, why don't we see what independent, reputable sources have to say? Per policy, it isn't our place as editors to decide who the "major" powers were and were not. What is the consensus view of WW II historians? That is what we should use.

(And, can we not assume motives here? There are cases to be made for and against the inclusion of various countries as major powers. Don't assume that the only reason an editor is suggesting that a country be included or excluded is because they are pro- or anti- that country.) - Eron ^Talk 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Because they really aren't needed there. A link to the Allied powers of WWII and Axis of WWII pages is quite sufficient. Lets put this ridiculous argument to bed, eh? Parsecboy 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's ridiculous, but encyclopedias are around to help people learn. Deleting the Big Three just to avoid conflict is not helpful. Haber 15:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but the information is still there, just the pretty little flags are gone. Parsecboy 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I again tried to boldly remove the POV- following Parsecboy- and it was reverted on the basis that "good content shouldn't be removed just to avoid conflict". It isn't good content, it's inherently POV, and I didn't remove it to avoid conflict, I removed it to bring the content into line with WP:NPOV. It does seem unfortunately that this debate is intractable. Badgerpatrol 15:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think listing the most significant powers on each side adds to the article. The intractable part of this debate surrounds which countries beyond the Big 3 Allies could be considered "major". Is there really any dispute that the UK, US, and USSR were the three most significant allied powers? If not - and I can't see that there could be - then can we not limit the list to these three, and only these three, along with the three major Axis powers? Then there is no need to debate who is in fourth place. If a fourth country is added, it can be removed; not because it isn't major, but because we just don't list four countries. - Eron ^Talk 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some might conceivably argue that China was a more significant player than the UK. But the point is- terms like "major" and "significant" are not NPOV, and cannot ever be. Why should we limit the list to only three nations (whichever they are)? Why not 2, or 1, or 32? What makes a "major" power? Is it casualties suffered? Inflicted? Industrial output? Length of time in combat? Number of troops? It is simply not possible to say. Better to link to the substantive articles where the situation can be discussed with appropriate depth and nuance. Badgerpatrol 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The average person does not know that the UK, US, and USSR fought on one side in WWII, and Germany, Italy, and Japan fought on the other. This is why things like encyclopedias are around. We have a teachable moment in the infobox, where we can introduce these countries, and leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Churchill. "Follow the link" is a waste of time and it won't get done very often. This whole business with China is a separate issue. Haber 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, that is total nonsense. The average person - barring idiots who are not going to find any value in an encyclopaedia anyway- is well aware that the UK, US and USSR fought on (mostly) the same side in WWII. The information has close to zero informative value. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just your opinion. I suggest you get out in the world and ask some people what they know about history. You might be surprised. Haber 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Badgerpatrol; most people know that the USA, UK, and USSR fought Germany, Italy, and Japan in WWII. They might not know specific campaigns or battles, outside of the famous ones like Normandy, Pearl Harbor, or Stalingrad, but I think most people know the big combatants. Grant, we all know how you feel about China's inclusion, but this discussion is not about that. If you don't have anything useful to contribute in regards to whether the countries should be listed or just the links to the articles, please be quiet.Parsecboy 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the average person can click on the Axis powers or Allied powers links and read all about the members of each. --NEMT 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The average person can also reach for another reference. Haber 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt someone would see the lack of pretty little flags and ignore the link to the Allies/Axis article, and go through the trouble of searching something else out. Badgerpatrol is right, terms like "major" or significant" are POV, and if those aren't in the title, then every country that was on either side deserves to be on the list, and that becomes overly large. Just having the link to the Allies/Axis articles is the best solution to the problem. Parsecboy 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole "3 Allies v 3 Axis" schema is very cute, but it won't wash wtih me and a lot of other people, and represents a bad case of both revisionism (e.g. how about Roosevelt's phrase "Four Policemen", which included China) and eurocentrism (e.g. China fought the vast majority of the Japanese army) Grant | Talk 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not including me in the 3v3 only crowd. I'm ok with 3v3, 4v3 (w/China), even 5v3 (w/France). What I don't like is 0v0. Haber 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Haber. My comment was directed mostly at NEMT's inflammatory "hopefully soon we'll have China off there for good as well".

Parsecboy, you don't have to the right to tell me or anyone else to "be quiet" about anything. You and NEMT have demonstrated behaviour not in keeping Wikipedia policy in these debates. Grant | Talk 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, by using factual evidence and basic logic to support our claims Parsecboy and myself have demonstrated much behavior not common in wikipedia discussions, particularly those involving war and national pride. --NEMT 04:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, factual evidence and basic logic, that's what you'd think. And I wouldn't have such confidence if I had been repeatedly blocked for uncivil behavior, vandalism, with one as recent as January. BlueShirts 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Steady on, chaps. Badgerpatrol 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, Grant, how have I behaved poorly? By disagreeing with you? By telling you to stick with the discussion at hand and not return to a dead subject? Maybe I really AM just a "dumb, xenophobic, red neck 'the USA is the best in the world and every other country is crap' American", but I don't see how your assertion that I have behaved badly holds any water. Perhaps you should enlighten us all. Parsecboy 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with your background. I just don't take kindly to being told to "be quiet". Grant | Talk 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of learning history is learning to prioritize information. Click on the Allied Powers link and you still have to scroll down to find out that the UK fought in the war. Then you have to go back to Axis Powers to find out that Germany fought in the war. Readers will be missing out if they walk away from this article not knowing which side was which. Despite what you say, this is not common knowledge. Haber 22:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize this, but the article here actually explains all combatants on both sides in a very organized and effective manner. --NEMT 00:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Haber, that sounds like a problem with the "Allies of WWII" article, not this one. Perhaps you should be fixing that one such that it makes that information readily available. NEMT is right, the article does explain the Allied and Axis powers pretty well. The problem here, at least from my observations, is that Haber likes the pretty little flags in the infobox. They really serve no purpose, other than to make the article a little more colorful. If someone came to this article to find out about WWII, I don't think they'd just look at the flags to find out what countries fought, and move to another article. They'd read at least the overview, which does a great job explaining the major countries involved. Moreover, at what point do you stop listing countries? If you remove the word "Major", then I have no problem with China being on the list. But what about India? Or Australia or Poland? Where does one draw the line? And if we're going in include more than 3 Allied powers, why not put Hungary or Finland on the Axis side to even it out? Don't you see the problem this is?

And Grant, you were talking to be heard, and nothing more. I could care less what you "take kindly to"; contribute to the discussion or go elswhere. Parsecboy 12:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL...you don't decide what is relevant to this discussion and what isn't. And no. I'm not going elsewhere. Grant | Talk 11:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Grant, lets not be childish now. We don't need to be putting "rude little" above other people's comments. You're what, 46? 47? How about we act like it? Parsecboy 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

41 — but I don't feel a day over 21. Thanks for deleting my incorrectly-located and unsigned post. I apologise to little people. Grant | Talk 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd be ok with the text without the "pretty" flags. That's actually the way the infobox template people would like it to be used. However most people do prefer the flags. Let me try to explain it another way: if a young person (or your average non-history buff) were to come to this article, and memorized nothing but the eight nations in the infobox, they would know under which flag >90% of the soldiers fought, and they would know where >90% of the industrial output during the war came from. They'd be able to identify eight huge personalities and associate them with their respective countries. This is an excellent start towards understanding the war, and to me it outweighs the importance of being all-inclusive. There is plenty of time for that later. Haber 13:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with the hope that I can bring a fresh perspective to the argument at hand. Call me childish, but I like the idea of the "pretty flags" as well, and they DO bring informational value, albeit minor and indirect. Not only do they illustrate what flags were adopted by some countries during WWII, but they also enhance the readability factor of the article, which is essential when the objective is to teach. They also provide a quick eye reference for readers who may come to the WWII article looking for the article on the allies as opposed to a simple text link.

As for which flag should or shouldn't be in the list, I think we are reading too far into the issue by trying to list the few countries that contributed the most. To measure who contributed the most is an inconceivable task for a war of this scale. Evidently there are too many factors involved and what constitutes any level of contribution for one, may not for another. The current (5v3) list is fine, and although to some it may not represent who the major contributors/leaders/etc. were during WWII, as a reader you wouldn't be incorrect to conclude that the countries did contribute... and that's all that really matters.

Again, the list is fine as it is and as an objective reader, I don't see the list telling me who the major contributors were. I will form that opinion upon reading the article coupled with articles from other sources. Also, as a Canadian, I don't see the list as an insult to the Canadian soldiers who fought and died during the war simply because the flag is excluded from the shortened list. — Dorvaq (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I agree the 5v3 list should be looked at as merely a tool, with no deeper meaning. Haber 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Background poll

Did you know at least one member of both the Axis and Allied powers of WW2 before reading this article?

Yes. I knew just about all notable participants in WW2 and their roles, and did for quite some time before ever having stumbled upon Wikipedia. --NEMT 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia editors tend to be more knowledgeable I assume, so what's the point of this poll? Have you seen "jaywalking" on Leno? BlueShirts 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can both agree most (if not all) wikipedia editors also come to wikipedia for research and recreational learning reasons, though. Even if many are educated and already knowledgeable, they should still provide a somewhat accurate sample of wiki readers - and many are just "average people," since anyone can edit wikipedia. Also, since we all know the average person apparently doesn't know the UK was an allied power (see above) this should be a pretty one sided poll - right? --NEMT 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CANADA2

In the list of main allies, there is the neglect of Canada to the war! Canada really deserves a spot there because they played a big part - Dieppe, Juno Beach, the Italian Campaign! China is listed, even though they did not do as much!

This has been discussed to death. Canada didnt play a big part in WWII. Live with it. Dieppe and Juno beach are insignificant in the greater scheme of WWII. USSR, USA, China and UK were the big players in WWII on the Allied Side. China lost 20 million men, killed 3 million japanese troops in WWII. Can Canada say the same? Mercenary2k 20:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an insult to Canada and Canadian history to maintain that they made 'little' effort. Many Canadians fought in operations that few people have heard of, such as the Gindrinker's line in Hong Kong. Their contribution is still as valuable, a Canadian killed is worth anyone else killed. The contribution of British Empire and Dominion states is always going to be disputed because Canada was just forming independence when war broke out. Canada, NZ and Australia were invaluable allies in both world wars. That doesn't even take into account all the Canadian airmen in the Battle of Britain or Canadian merchant seamen.

Thatstheway

Canada did relatively little, even compared to Free France and Poland. Additionally, a case could be made for Canada being implicitly included with the UK. "Live with it." --NEMT 21:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada is not "implicitly [or otherwise] included with the UK". The Statute of Westminster (1931) gave the "White Dominions" independence in foreign policy. And I don't think changing the U.K. listing to "British Commonwealth" (official name in 1926-49) would satisfy anyone.

While I agree that Canada was not a major ally, the number of times that this comes up (and the number of times that people question China's inclusion) illustrates the problem with only having major allies in the box. Grant | Talk 02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

China killed 3 million Japanese troops, tied up 60% of the entire Japanese Military, lost 20 million people. China was a major Ally Mercenary2k 03:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just further proof we're better off with 'Axis Powers' and 'Allied Powers' alone in the combatants section, no states. --NEMT 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thatstheway 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the frustration might come from a perceived need to debate every single Canadian jingoist on this talk page. While I admire the patience it must take to do this, I think it's counterproductive if the end result is that everyone throws up their hands and clears the infobox. There is broad consensus for the 5 v 3. It's not perfect, but it's useful. Haber 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the contribution of USA, USSR, China and GB versus Canada, Australia, India, Philippines and NZ is exactly the difference between Major and Minor allies. I'm canadian and despite this I strongly advocated to keep China in the list; however, the line must be drawn somewhere and Canada is on the other side... There is more than the infobox in this article! --Flying tiger 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm Canadian, and I strongly believe your all giving Canada less credit than your giving. Were they a major power? Debatable. As big as China? Probably not, but that is also debatable. Despite all that, I also beleive China was a major power. These debates are truly getting old. In terms of the actual infobox, though, the only way we'll ever solve this is to actually come up with a accepted definition of "major", something which we'll never do. In my opinion (This is just my opinion here), despite the "usefulness" of the 5x3 we have now, it should be 3x3 (Or 4x3, possibly, as France was important...), as the three "major" Allied powers were the USSR, USA and UK, despite anyone's claims. They tower over any other country in terms of what they did, and when I say everyone that includes China and Canada and any other country people want to complain about. They are historically and publicly accepted as the "Big 3", and since it's 3 they should be the three in the infobox. --Plasma Twa 2 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone is itching to eliminate a country from the combatant box of Allied Powers, it should be FRANCE! After all, the French and the British lost the battle of France in what...a month and ten days! Not to mention that Vichy France is an Axis collaborator that fought the Allies and eagerly handed the French Jews to the Nazis. DCTT 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll try to defend both. China - numbers. The sheer scale of their participation and of the casualties dwarfs 10 Canadas. France - history and the origins of the war. Many people view WWII almost as a continuation of I, or even of the Franco-Prussian War. France really underperformed (vs. Canada which overperformed for its size), but still no one can understand the causes, politics, or the peace settlements without having some idea what France was trying to do. Haber 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument about France and the Holocaust is a diversive issue. We accept that the three Unions were the major allies in WWII. Without the Battle of Britain, Battle of Midway and Battle of Stalingrad the war would have played out very differently. Canada's role in WWII, although laudable, was very much to assist existing US and UK efforts, such as Hong Kong or Caen. They did not fight alone at any juncture and were very much under British military control. I'm in support of a 6 v 3 arrangement, with Britain,USA,USSR,France, China and British Empire vs Germany, Italy and Japan. Thatstheway 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed France & de Gaulle again. A major power in WW1, and it may have been in 1939-40 and 1944-45. But for four years it did little and was even an Axis co-belligerent. Grant | Talk 14:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to include any countries past the "Big Three" it should only be China (though I myself don't believe it should be listed, if that's the consensus, I can live with it), and nothing more. Canada, France, Poland, etc. all do not belong on the list. 4v3 at very most. If people want to start adding more, then we should add more Axis powers. Surely Hungarian or Finnish troops contributed as much to the Axis war effort as Canadian or Free French did to the Allies, if not more. Including both Britain and the British Empire doesn't make sense, as Britain would be a part of the Empire, so why list it twice? PS. I slapped a "2" in the title of this section, as the link in the table of contents would go to the original "canada" discussion topic. Parsecboy 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Britain was not part of it's own Empire. Finland was not truly an Axis member as she was interested in self-preservation in the face of Soviet expansion, not helping Germany. Finland is the anomaly in WW2. Any pro-German actions Finland took were solely made under duress.

I don't see how you can say that the British Isles were not part of the British Empire. The British monarch or parliament held no sway over them? You might as well say that Washington D.C. isn't a part of the United States, or that Brandenburg isn't a part of Germany.

Finland might not have been a Tripartite Pact member, but it was an Axis co-belligerent, which is good enough to include on the Axis side. It also wasn't the only co-belligerent, as Thailand fought the Allies on the Japanese side, but never formally joined the Axis. Iraq was the same case; it fought the British but wasn't an Axis member. Parsecboy 14:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever changed the heading to CANADA2. These conflicts could easily be resolved by not listing anyone. The article goes to great lengths to explain who fought for which side and when (and why). We don't need lists of belligerents and pretty little flags in the infobox, what proportion of the discussion here is centered around inclusion in it? --NEMT 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember that in 1940, when almost everyone else was sitting on their hands, France faced Germany practically alone. From Battle of France, "On 10 May there were 93 French, 22 Belgian, ten British and nine Dutch divisions in the North, for a total of 134." Having De Gaulle represent France is a different story, but again I think he's the best choice we have (though by some accounts he was an arrogant sideshow worse than useless). Haber 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Finland faced the Soviets alone - and did considerably better than the French did against the Germans. --NEMT 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Finland fielded an army of 250,000. France 6 million. France also faced a better trained and equipped opponent. Let's get some perspective. Haber 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets not denigrate Finland, it's army was actually almost twice that, at 475,000. France, however, was better equiped than Germany, and had a larger military, so where's the excuses now? Parsecboy 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I put the 2 in there to differentiate on the table of contents...As for France, sure, they "invaded" Germany. If you want to call such a poor excuse for an attack that only advanced 8km with almost no German resistance and then retreated a "major contribution", then go right ahead. Parsecboy 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who was talking about an "invasion"? Not me. Try to have some understanding for what those millions of French soldiers did for you. Even though things didn't go their way, if they hadn't taken a stand the war would have been over, Axis victory, 1939. Haber 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What stand did France take? An abortive offensive into Germany that achieved absolutely zip? France did nothing to defeat Germany in 1939-40. If anything it's France's fault that the war didn't end in 1939-40 in an Allied victory. If France had not abandoned the Saar Offensive, they would have steam-rolled into Germany, as they outnumbered and had more/better tanks than Germany did at the time. You said "Remember that in 1940, when almost everyone else was sitting on their hands, France faced Germany practically alone." The only thing you possibly could have been referring to is the Saar offensive, other than that, France sat on their hands too. Parsecboy 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"France did nothing to defeat Germany in 1939-40." I don't think you really believe this. Come on. Haber 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually do seriously believe that. Give me one example of a French action that actively contributed to a possible Allied victory in 1939-40 other than the worthless Saar offensive. They sat on their asses just as much (if not more so than, I say that because they were actually in a position to end the war in 1939, they chose not to do so) as Britain. Therefore, they made no contribution of even minimal significance in 39-40. And their efforts didn't really improve thereafter. You ignored my question earlier though; what on earth did you mean when you said "...if they hadn't taken a stand the war would have been over, Axis victory, 1939."? Parsecboy 18:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question, if France doesn't declare war in 1939, then neither does Great Britain. German aggression goes unchecked. When France and the UK are finally forced to fight, it is under less advantageous circumstances. Germany wins. Therefore, France helped to defeat Germany by taking a stand, early. They continued this by refusing to make peace after Poland fell. They committed some of their best forces to the crazy sweep into Belgium (that Belgium should have allowed months before), and then had their entire plan fall apart as those elite forces had to turn around and try to fight their way back into France. The Maginot line held out for a long time, even when attacked from behind. The French kept fighting even as the Brits were running for the boats and hoarding their aircraft for the Battle of Britain. I wouldn't say they made "no contribution of even minimal significance", and I'm surprised that you think that. Haber 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it (it being the eventual conflict between Germany and the Anglo-French if they had not declared war in 1939) is the war would've gone substantially the same way. Germany still wouldn't have been able to invade England, and still would've invaded Russia and thus sealed it's fate. I don't see how fighting under "less advantageous circumstances" would've produced an outcome wildly different from what actually happened. If anything, it would've helped the Allies to delay, as they could have substantially increased their defense budgets, etc. to counter the obviously growing German threat. I suppose your argument is that Germany would've armed itself better in the time between the fall of Poland and the opening of hostilities with France/England. It would have produced the exact same result, and little more. The Luftwaffe never really intended to build a strategic bombing force that could've subdued Britain, and the Kriegsmarine wouldn't have been able to build up a surface fleet large enough to protect a forced landing in England. England would have still remained the island base from which the American/British invasion of Europe was launched. Parsecboy 19:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We're getting on all sorts of tangents. Believe me, the Fall of France was hardly a foregone conclusion, and surprises just about every analyst and historian to this day. If you're interested I suggest you track down the chapter in Military Misfortunes : The Anatomy of Failure in War, Free Press, 1990, ISBN 0-02-906060-5, by Cohen and Gooch. These guys really break it down and make some sense out of it. Haber 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please dont include France or anyone else. USA, USSR, UK, the 3 U's and China, were the big players in WW2 vs Germany, Italy and Japan. If you include France, then why not Romania and Hungary or Finland. This article is already to heavily slanted towards A Western point of view. I fixed up and enhanced the Eastern front sections to be fair to the Russians who killed and destroyed 90% of all German and 40% of Japanese forces. Mercenary2k 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. Fear of Eurocentrism doesn't mean we should ignore the most significant Allied combatant of 1939-1940. Haber 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This (nationalistic?) idiocy regarding France and others is symptomatic of the whole problem. These distinctions are completely arbitrary. There is no way to resolve this dispute thorugh compromise and the only effective resolution is to remove the country names from the infobox, as suggested by me and others above. This has already boldly been tried and has been immediately reverted. Shall we therefore consider mediation or an RfC as a next step towards resolving this (seemingly intractable) problem? Badgerpatrol 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what all the fuss is about. USA, UK, USSR and China vs Germany, Italy and Japan. Thats it. France was taken out in 1940 and thus not a major player in WWII. The French inflicted 25,000 German dead in WWII and the Germans lost that many in 1 day of fighting in Stalingrad. Lets just leave it at USA, UK, USSR and China vs Germany, Italy and Japan. Any other country belongs in the Other category and not in the Big 3 + China Category. Look at how other encyclopedias do it. No one includes France, Canada or Poland in the Major Allied Category because they were not. Just accept it and move on. This article still needs a lot of help and all you guys seem to care about is which country to include in the battle box. Mercenary2k 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Which other encyclopedias? From Britannica: "The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China." From Encarta: "It began in 1939 as a European conflict between Germany and an Anglo-French coalition but eventually widened to include most of the nations of the world." I don't think we should be looking to other encyclopedias as sources, but you're the one who brought it up. I do agree with you though, that the article needs more work. Haber 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I don't know why others don't accept that the only way to effectively stop these arguments is to remove the names altogether. I would support mediation or an RfC to end this dispute. Parsecboy 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

France needed to do more than field "93 divisons" for nine months, then surrender and actively resist the Allies, to qualify as a major Ally. Australia maintained 10 divisions for about five years, along with an air force of about fifty squadrons and a navy of about 60 warships. But Australia wasn't a major power either. Grant | Talk 19:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC) And once again I reiterate my support for the removal of all countries from the list of Allies and Axis powers.Grant | Talk 19:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a nitpick - but if you read the quote more closely you'll notice that that was 93 divisions in Northern France. That figure doesn't include the whole French military, which exceeded the population of Australia including men, women, children, and koala bears. Haber 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the number of men and women in French service at the start of the war, Grant makes a good point about needing to do more than field an army and then surrender after 9 months. The comparison to Australia's population (what about the kangaroos and wombats?) is irrelevant; you'll notice that Grant never said Australia was a major Ally. Saying that one stone is larger than another doesn't make it a boulder. Parsecboy 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even bring up Australia. Let's not use the wallabys and Tasmanian devils as straw men. His point about division-years was interesting, but was based on the false assumption that 93 divisions was all the French had. All the quote serves to show is that the war in 1939-40 was essentially a war between "Germany and an Anglo-French coalition", like Encarta phrases it. Haber 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The exact number of French divisions/etc. is completely irrelevant, as is the fact that for 9 months, it was an Anglo-French coalition against Germany. So France was the major Allied country for 9 months. For the next 5 years of the war, its contribution was pretty much nil. That does not qualify, in my opinion, as a major ally. Parsecboy 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, but again I have to pick another nit. By the end of 1944 France had 1 million men under arms, and by May 1945 they had 1.25 million men. 10 divisions were fighting in Germany, including 3 armored divisions, and another 5 were fighting in the Alps.[4] The other Allies considered France major enough in 1945 to give it occupation zones and a permanent seat on the security council. And I still think that even if none of this had happened the events of 1939-40 would have been enough to call France "major". Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd hate to see it based on misconceptions about the French army in 1940 or them not getting back into the war when they had the chance. Haber 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would define my personal criteria for whether a country should be considered "major" in one simple statement: did the country in question contribute greatly to the Allied victory, and without it, could the Allies still have triumphed? I don't think you could answer "yes" for France. The 1 million French troops in late '44 were irrelevant, as the Soviets had already destroyed most of the German army, and the British/American forces were poised to enter Germany from the west. The Allied victory was a foregone conclusion. Therefore, France made no significant contribution to the end of the war in Europe. The French were given occupation zones and a permanent seat on the Security Council to make them feel better about themselves. Parsecboy 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing all the countries is by far the easiest way to end these discussions. And Mercenary, I have to point out that, on the level of the other three China was not a major power. It may be bigger than Canada, but it is not major when it's compared to the USSR or the UK. --Plasma Twa 2 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This line caught my attention above all else mentioned: Try to have some understanding for what those millions of French soldiers did for you. This is clearly the remark of someone with little or no understanding of wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. These guidelines are particularly important when discussing wars. --NEMT 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It is all a matter of what level you go to as far as a country's contribution is concerned. Canada misses out because it had a relatively small population and was far away as a country from the fighting. As far as sacrifice is concerned, of course Canada suffered. But you have to remember 62 million people died, so the suffering was great in many places. Canada, was lucky in that it was allowed to perticipate in some glamorous battles such as D-Day. Compare that with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India, which had to slog it out in some really rotten campaigns. These countries also have a relatively realistic idea of what they contributed. I do feel that some country's historians, in particular, the UK, Canada and Poland do tend to overstate their country's involvement. Wallie 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

These annoying Canadians have forced us to remove the commander and and combatants from the battle box. This is a shame. Mercenary2k 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alas, but on the bright side there shouldn't be any more of these damn arguments. --Plasma Twa 2 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed them, as I've been suggesting someone do since the RoC debate. It's just better this way. --NEMT 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What really sucks about this is how the question of whether the flags should be there or not seemingly always degenerates into a "who contributed the most" type argument, which I've stated before is irrelevant.

The irony of it all is that it's not even a Canadian who re-initiated this argument. Regardless, despite being a proponent of the "pretty flags", I will side with their removal. Note, I know this has already been achieved, but I'm listing my vote now for future reference. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason it always degenerates into a "who was the most important" discussion is because there isn't really another way to determine whether a country should be added to the list or not. That's the whole problem inherent with the "pretty flags"; it's subjective. It's impossible to create a clear-cut set of guidelines by which countries are included or removed that satisfy everyone. We tried that in the "China?" discussion, but it couldn't be agreed upon. Therefore, it's either all or nothing, unless you want to continue having these ridiculous arguments every single day. How many times has this been discussed? How many times have we reached a consensus, only to have an anon or new user cause another problem? Parsecboy 15:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why I now vote to have them removed as I stated above. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry I got sucked into that re:France. I thought we were having an interesting discussion but evidently it hurts people to hear this stuff to the point where they feel compelled to delete useful content. Haber 16:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New look for battlebox

I think the box looks a lot tidier without the countries/leaders. Following comments here, I rewrote Allies of World War II to include the major Allies in the introduction.

I don't know what it is with my Commonwealth cousins in Canada; some of them also keep changing Allies of World War I, to list Canada separately there, even though the Dominions didn't even have independence in foreign policy until 1931. I guess it has something to do with living next door to he only superpower :-) Grant | Talk 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Canadians are just a mix of proud and ignorant. THAT comes from lving next door to the only superpower (I just insulted myself. Keen.) But your right, it looks alot nicer. If someone wants to find out who fought in WWII, they only need to read the article and/or click on the link. Sadly, though, I think your rewrite of Allies of World War II may get some people angry...

Now, only if we could fix the infobox problems over on the WWI page... But that's a diffrent topic for a diffrent time. --Plasma Twa 2 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT "UK/Great Britain" REPRESENTS ALL THE DOMINIONS THAT PLAYED A PART...IF CANADA SHOULD BE LISTED THEN WHY SHOULDN'T AUSTRAILIA?? ANYWAYS CANADA WILL NEVER BE UP THERE. I MYSELF AM A PROUD CANADIAN BUT I ACCEPT THAT WE ARE NOT PUT ON THERE. ANYONE WHO ISN'T STUPID KNOWS THAT CANADA WAS IN WW2. SO IT BEING PUT UP THERE REALLY MEANS NOTHING. THE STATES ARE UP THERE BECAUSE OF THERE MILITARY PRESENCE. MUCH LIKE WW1 WHERE THE USA ONLY JOINED BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THEM, AND THEY JOINED LATE. BUT THE USA HAD/HAS A HUGE MILITARY SO THERFORE IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST.

MY MAIN POINT IS THAT CANADA WAS PART OF THE "UK" and the "UK" IS ON THERE. 205.251.204.250 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)